OpenSceneGraph anyone?
category: general [glöplog]
I tried to use OSG once, but it was to much trouble getting down to bare opengl ... which you probably want when you are tweaking and hacking your fx routines. Sure, there is a couple of quite nice effects there to use, but in the end of the day you most likely want to go beyond that.
It is probably very good for long lasting code that you are going to maintain, but I think it is too much overhead for demo coding.
It is probably very good for long lasting code that you are going to maintain, but I think it is too much overhead for demo coding.
skrebbel: yes! you can have excessive levels of child nodes for each drawn mesh/object. which is great for animation.
Ex. bones(for skinning), joints (for IK), ribbons and metablobs are easily fitted within a scene graph.
Ex. bones(for skinning), joints (for IK), ribbons and metablobs are easily fitted within a scene graph.
skrebbel: basically most datastructures democoders implement for scene/fx management are scenegraphs, it's just that they're not explicitely tagged with that word :)
so, yes, all those things where nodes have child nodes have child nodes.... etc... for whatever you may imagine (not only grouping, also transformations, materials, ....) boil down to be some sort of scenegraph.
to return to the original topic: OSG _might_ be ready and maybe even nice to implement all that fancy stuff, but as happy-h already said: probably too much overhead for something visual-outcome-centered thing like a demo.
so, yes, all those things where nodes have child nodes have child nodes.... etc... for whatever you may imagine (not only grouping, also transformations, materials, ....) boil down to be some sort of scenegraph.
to return to the original topic: OSG _might_ be ready and maybe even nice to implement all that fancy stuff, but as happy-h already said: probably too much overhead for something visual-outcome-centered thing like a demo.
I worked with osg some years back. It's design is pure genius, but can be a bit hard to comprehend and get to work for you, rather than being a hurdle to get around.
I definately don't see it as demo-relevant, not only because it's huge in size, but also because, as happy-h says, it's hard to get close to the core. It is brilliant for just adding a bunch of objects for visualization, as it is quite optimized for that.
I definately don't see it as demo-relevant, not only because it's huge in size, but also because, as happy-h says, it's hard to get close to the core. It is brilliant for just adding a bunch of objects for visualization, as it is quite optimized for that.
Quote:
Gloom: The screen shots show what people made using the engine and in no way reflect the full potential of OSG. Sure they look crap, but that does not make it impossible or very hard to create something decent using the engine.
Actually, what I said was that every time the description "VR" was used, screenshots looked like crap.
However, you also said:
Quote:
Bruce: The screenshots are an overall reflection on the engine. If there are no good screenshots, obviously nobody using the engine has any interest in making something look good. [...]
Yes, because the discussion moved in that direction.. and what is wrong with that statement? The screenshots are an overall reflection of the engine itself. The fact that no artists are interested in working with the coders of the engine ought to be proof enough in itself. :) It doesn't matter what great features you have when you can't show them off, I guess is my point. Or put differently: this engine is chosen by people who are more into the engine than making things look good.. or at least - that is what the screenshot page tells me :)
...and isn't that whole VR market something, that consists of a few companies offering VR solutions and no companies buying/needing them? :)
Quote:
Personally I think it is a good thing to use libraries like these. There is really no need to reinvent the wheel over and over again.
Then why not go and use any full 3D engine?
Quote:
...and isn't that whole VR market something, that consists of a few companies offering VR solutions and no companies buying/needing them
haha
Styx has leading :)
gloom: thank you for proving my point.
Dila: sure, why not.
This thread is bizarrely confusing..
skrebbel:
It's all about 'retained mode' vs 'immediate mode'. Do you hand the system a cube and say 'please draw this whenever' or do you shovel the triangles every frame yourself? WPF is retained mode also, and we get all sorts of requests from people for new features to be included in it to make their pet scenario work.
It's all about 'retained mode' vs 'immediate mode'. Do you hand the system a cube and say 'please draw this whenever' or do you shovel the triangles every frame yourself? WPF is retained mode also, and we get all sorts of requests from people for new features to be included in it to make their pet scenario work.
WPF? :-)
not the windows presentation thing, i presume?
okkie: only if you don't get what the discussion is really all about.
oh eh ah. shifter, in that case i think i'm missing something too. care to elaborate?
So why is gloom commenting on a pure code thread? This isn't one of your outreach threads - go back to scene.org you inbred norwegian.
yeah good point! it's a bit like stefan commenting on a thread with actual honest content and discussion. it just feels out of place.
gloom, that's kind of a very specious argument you're using here.
knos: Which one? 1) That anything labeled "VR" looks crappy?, or 2) That there are no good-looking Linux-demos?
Unless my reading skills aren't in good shape, those aren't arguments
Then please refer me to the arguments you say are wrong, because dancing around semantics seems rather pointless.